G.R. No.

121917 July 31, 1996

ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA, accused-appellant,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellees.
FACTS:
Apellant Robin C. Padilla was charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866
for illegal possession of firearms punishable by reclusion temporal
maximum to reclusion perpetua. Pending trial, appellant was released on
bail. Thereafter, appellant was convicted as charged and meted an
indeterminate penalty of 17 years 4 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal to 21 years of reclusion perpetua. He appealed to public
respondent Court of Appeals, but judgment was rendered affirming his
conviction.
-----eto lang talaga ang facts ng case (from lawphil)---- HONESTO
PROMISE ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant is entitled to bail
RULING:
No. Bail is either a matter of right, or of discretion. It is a matter of right
when the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. In this case, appellant was convicted of a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua. Applying the aforequoted rule,
appellant is not entitled to bail as his conviction clearly imports that the
evidence of his guilt is strong. And contrary to appellant's asseveration, a
summary hearing for his bail application for the sole purpose of
determining whether or not evidence is strong is unnecessary. Indeed,
the extensive trial before the lower court and the appeal before
respondent court are more than sufficient in accomplishing the purpose
for which a summary hearing for bail application is designed.